A surrogate mother who decided to keep the baby she was carrying has lost custody of the child after a court ruled the infant should live with their gay intended parents.

In a ruling published on Friday, Court of Appeal judges said the identity needs of the 18-month-old, who was conceived using sperm from one of the men and an egg from a Spanish donor, 'would be best met by living with a genetic parent'.

The woman, who cannot be identified, entered into a surrogacy arrangement with the same-sex couple in August 2015 after meeting them online.

A surrogate mother who decided to keep the baby she was carrying has lost custody of the child after a court ruled the infant should live with their gay intended parents

She then travelled to Cyprus in September 2015 for the transfer of the embryo, the court heard.

But the day before the child's birth in late April, the solicitor for the surrogate parents wrote to the same-sex couple informing them that they were not prepared to follow through with their surrogacy agreement.

Share this article

The same-sex parents appealed the decision and last year the High Court ordered that the child should live with them full-time.

As part of the decision, the surrogate was allowed limited contact with the child six times a year, The Telegraph reported.

Concluding, Mr Justice McFarlane said: 'This case is another example of the complex consequences that can arise from entering into this type of arrangement'

The birth parents appealed the decision, which was upheld by Court of Appeal judges on October 12.

In the ruling, Lord Justice McFarlane said the judge at the original hearing 'was critical of [the birth parents] for the way in which they had behaved in the later stages of the pregnancy and immediately after H's birth.

'She described them as having embarked on a deliberate and calculated course of conduct and as having continued to put obstacles in the way of [the gay couple] in seeking to establish a relationship with H.

'She referred to them as being rigid, taking a position and sticking to it, and as having little or no capacity to resolve disputes or negotiate their way through difficulties.'

This contrasted with the way the gay couple tried to mend fences through social media, albeit in an ill-advised way, he said.

He accepted the recommendation that the child should see its birth parents six times a year, but said any higher frequency 'risks further undermining of [the gay couple's] ability to care for H.'

'There should be discussions between the parties after this judgement regarding any arrangements for Skype or indirect contact between contacts,' he added.

Concluding, the judge said: 'This case is another example of the complex consequences that can arise from entering into this type of arrangement.

'Even though [the surrogate] was an experienced surrogate, this case demonstrates the risks involved when parties reach agreement to conceive a child which, if it goes wrong, can cause huge distress to all concerned.

'For all the adults involved, who all clearly love H, the one thing I know they will agree is that their dispute and this contested litigation has been a harrowing experience for them all.

'This case is another example of the consequences of not having a properly supported and regulated framework to underpin arrangements of this kind.'